alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019263EN.01004402.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)

(Case T-291/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Compliant Constructs - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 263/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Donaueschingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 1626/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the word sign Compliant Constructs as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12288]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224, as amended (“E.O. 13224” or “Order”), I hereby determine that the persons known as Mohamed Ali Nkalubo (also known as Meddie Nkalubo and Meddie Lee) and Ahmed Mahamud Hassan Aliyani (also known as Ahmed Mahmoud Hassan and Ahmad Mahmoud Hassan) are leaders of ISIS-DRC, an entity whose property and interests in property are currently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to E.O. 13224.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 6, 2023.

Antony J. Blinken,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-27995 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert L. Walker, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The verdict, following a nonjury trial, convicting defendant of second degree burglary is not against *675the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The People established that defendant broke into the complainant’s apartment, brandished a knife, threatened to kill her and attempted to escape when the police arrived. Defendant’s intent to commit a crime at the time of his entry *(see, People v Gaines,*74 NY2d 358) can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances *(see, People v Middleton,*140 AD2d 550, *lv denied*72 NY2d 959; *People v Bull,*136 AD2d 929, *lv denied*71 NY2d 966; *People v Johnson,*115 AD2d 136, *lv denied*67 NY2d 762). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Steven D. Bonham, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Unify Corporation;

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

| | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM               
| | -----------------------------------
| | Steven D. Bonham                   
| | Chief Financial Officer            
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting
| | Officer)                           

Dated: April 30, 2007



---
# C_2020339EN.01001102.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Neda Industrial Group v Council

(Case T-490/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

(2020/C 339/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neda Industrial Group (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/833 of 4 June 2018 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2018 L 140, p. 87), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/827 of 4 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2018 L 140, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, second, of the letter of 6 June 2018 from the Council to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/833 of 4 June 2018 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/827 of 4 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they concern Neda Industrial Group; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/833 of 4 June 2018 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/827 of 4 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they concern Neda Industrial Group;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decision 2018/833 be maintained as regards Neda Industrial Group until the annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/827 takes effect; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2018/833 be maintained as regards Neda Industrial Group until the annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/827 takes effect;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
ekkh_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
 
 
	 
	1

	

	 


 
 
	 
	2

	

	 


 
 
	 
	3

	

	 


 
 
 
 
	4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PW PREFERRED
YIELD FUND II, L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880297
<NAME> PW PREFERRED YIELD FUND II, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,444,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  643,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,087,827
<PP&E>                                      31,674,378
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,064,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,715,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          794,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,921,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,715,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,997,450
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,564,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                366,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            366,605
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   366,605
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008327EN.01000601.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-95/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/9/EC - Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice)

(2008/C 327/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28) — Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP); |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP);

| 2. | orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116 of 9.5.2008.

1

---
#### Dorothy M. Greenman, Respondent, v Donald L. Greenman, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.) ordering, *inter alia,*equitable distribution of the parties’ marital property, entered October 2,1990 in Cortland County, upon a decision of the court.

After 40 years of marriage the parties separated in 1987 and this action for divorce was commenced by plaintiff in 1989. Following a trial, Supreme Court divided the marital property on a fairly equal basis, with defendant receiving $3,377 more than plaintiff. Defendant has appealed.

Defendant initially contends that the Trial Judge erred in refusing to recuse himself from the case on the basis that the Judge had presided over another unrelated matter involving defendant. This is not a ground warranting a legal disqualification *(People v Collins,*136 AD2d 722, 724, *lv denied*71 NY2d 894) and a discretionary decision on a recusal motion is generally a matter of personal conscience. Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal *(People v Moreno,*70 NY2d 403). Here, the record fails to demonstrate that the Trial Judge abused his discretion in presiding over the trial.

Defendant also contends that Supreme Court erred in its acceptance of the valuation of real property by plaintiff’s expert and that the court should have accepted the real property tax assessment as the value of the properties. We disagree. Supreme Court has broad discretion in crediting the testimony of an expert witness *(Oswald v Oswald,*154 AD2d 817, 819). The record shows no abuse of discretion by the court in its acceptance of the opinion of a fully accredited expert over the tax assessment value particularly where, as here, there has been no evidence of the equalization rate applied to the properties.

In his remaining contention defendant has challenged the distribution of the marital property. There is no requirement that marital assets be. liquidated prior to distribution or that distribution of each item of marital property be made on an equal basis *(Arvantides v Arvantides,*64 NY2d 1033, 1034; *Monks v Monks,*134 AD2d 334, 336). Rather, property acquired during the marriage should be equitably distributed in a manner reflecting the individual needs and circumstances of the parties *(Coffey v Coffey,*119 AD2d 620, 622). The distribu*361tion made in this case leaves each party with a home and an automobile (and part of the available cash), which appears to represent a fair distribution of the parties’ nonliquid property, and should be affirmed.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury United States Mint
 AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2024 Harriet Tubman and Greatest Generation Commemorative Coin Programs.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Bailey, Sr. Program Manager for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pricing for the 2024 Harriet Tubman and Greatest Generation Commemorative Coin Programs is as follows:
                    ( print page 88706) Coin
Introductory price
Regular priceSilver Proof (both programs)
$82.00
$87.00Silver Uncirculated (both programs)
77.00
82.00Clad Proof (both programs)
49.00
54.00Clad Uncirculated (both programs)
47.00
52.00
 Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at 
                    *www.usmint.gov.* (Authority: Public Laws 117-162, 117-163) Eric Anderson, Executive Secretary, United States Mint.


[FR Doc. 2023-28191 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
Exhibit 99.9

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Partners of
Carrington L.D.H.A. Limited Partnership

We have audited the accompanying  balance sheet of Carrington  L.D.H.A.  Limited
Partnership (a Michigan limited  partnership),  MSHDA  Development No. 856 as of
December  31, 2004 and the  related  statements  of profit and loss,  changes in
accumulated  earnings  and cash flows for the year then ended.  These  financial
statements  are  the  responsibility  of  the  Partnership's   management.   Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our
audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance  with the auditing  standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain  reasonable  assurance about whether the
financial  statements are free of material  misstatement.  The  partnership  has
determined that it is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform,  and
audit of its  internal  control over  financial  reporting.  Our audit  included
consideration  of  internal  control  over  financial  reporting  as a basis for
designing audit  procedures that are appropriate in the  circumstances,  but not
for  the  purpose  of  expressing  an  opinion  on  the   effectiveness  of  the
partnership's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express
no  such  opinion.  An  audit  includes  examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence
supporting  the amounts and  disclosures in the financial  statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by  management,  as well as  evaluating  the  overall  financial  statement
presentation.  We believe  that our audit  provides a  reasonable  basis for our
opinion.

In our  opinion,  such  financial  statements  present  fairly,  in all material
respects,  the financial position of Carrington  L.D.H.A.  Limited  Partnership,
MSHDA No. 856 as of December 31, 2004,  and the results of its  operations,  the
changes in its  cumulative  income and its cash flows for the year then ended in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

/s/ UHY LLP
--------------------
Southfield, Michigan
January 21, 2005

                                       53
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Internet  Business's
International,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  the  undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated
below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  that  to  my  knowledge:

          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

          2.  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  the  Company.


     Date:  May  20,  2004

     /s/  Albert  R.  Reda
     ---------------------
     Chief  Executive  Officer


                                       28
<PAGE>